Australia, Feb. 9 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Jan. 9:

1. On 4 February 2024, Fiona Robinson (the Applicant) and her daughter were shopping at a Woolworths store in Young, New South Wales. The Woolworths store is owned and operated by the Woolworths Group Limited (the Respondent). The Applicant's daughter has a severe intellectual disability.

2. The Applicant alleges that employees of the Respondent were dangerously moving trolleys and when she raised concerns with a store manager about the danger this posed to her daughter, she was told "strap her into her stroller", "control your kid", and the store staff became argumentative with her. She started filming and photographing the staff and was told that she could not film in the store. The Applicant got upset and left the store.

3. On 4 February 2024 the Applicant lodged a complaint with Anti-Discrimination NSW (ADNSW), alleging that she and her daughter had been discriminated against on the ground of disability in the provision of goods and services, on the basis that the Respondent provided her and her daughter with less favourable terms of service because of her daughter's disability.

4. On 16 July 2024 a delegate of the President of ADNSW decided to decline the Applicant's complaint under s 92(1)(a)(i) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act) on the basis that the complaint was misconceived and lacking in substance. The President's delegate provided the following detailed explanation for that decision:

The alleged less favourable terms of service appear to involve two issues:

1. The store staff allegedly manoeuvring trolleys about the store in a manner that you consider dangerous; and

2. The comment made by the male staff.

1. Manoeuvring trolleys about the store in a manner that was dangerous

I note that there is a dispute between you and the Respondent about whether staff were manoeuvring trolleys about the store in a dangerous manner. However, taking your allegations at their highest, I am of the view that even if the circumstances were as you describe, this could not amount to unlawful disability discrimination for the following reasons:

- The alleged dangerous conduct of staff could have placed at risk at any toddler of similar age to your daughter, regardless of whether or not they had your daughter's disability. As such, it is my view that the information does not support that either you or your daughter were subjected to less favourable treatment by the respondent, as compared to shoppers with children who do not have your daughter's disability, in the same or similar circumstances. Those being where the child concerned are very young and unrestrained.

- There is nothing to support that having to negotiate a store at which trolleys were being moved about in a dangerous manner was either an actual or implied term of service of the Respondent. Even if it were, there is nothing to support that these alleged less favourable terms were provided to you or your daughter, because of your daughter's disability. Such terms would impact on all young children in the store, irrespective of whether or not they have a disability.

2. Alleged comments by staff. "Control your kid then"

There appears to be no dispute about the male staff member saying: "control your kid then". However, I am of the view that the comment made appears unconnected to your daughter's disability. The information suggests that the male staff member who made the comment, was not aware of your daughter's disability.

Even if a requirement to control young children while shopping, were to be considered a term of the respondent's service, such a term would likely apply to all shoppers with young children, and could not therefore amount to less favourable treatment of you or your daughter.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19442d3bc0e47b2668985930)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.